Clinical Applications of Circulating Tumor Cells and Circulating Tumor DNA as Liquid Biopsy

CTCs

Tumor cells are released from the primary tumor and/or metastatic sites into the bloodstream. The time of CTCs in the bloodstream is short (half-life: 1–2.4 hours; ref. 5). Whether the release of CTCs into the bloodstream is a random process or predetermined by a specific biologic program is still a matter of debate. Nevertheless, the conditions in the bloodstream are harsh for epithelial tumor cells, and it is likely that CTCs might undergo a strong selection process (6). This is consistent with the observation that apoptotic CTCs or fragmented CTCs are frequently found in the peripheral blood of patients with cancer (7). The clearance of surviving CTCs happens through extravasation into secondary organs. For example, in patients with colorectal cancer, comparative analysis of CTCs in the mesenteric and peripheral veins showed that the liver captures tumor cells released by the primary carcinoma (8), which is consistent with a wealth of animal data on this subject (6). As the dissemination of tumor cells to distant organ sites necessitates a treacherous journey through the vasculature, it is fostered by close association with activated platelets and macrophages (9). Thus, the tumor cells form hetero-aggregates that support attachment to the endothelium and thereby contribute to metastasis (10). Moreover, the migration of metastatic cells in circulation is often dependent upon gradients of chemokines, including CXCR4, CCR4, CCR7, and CCR9, that direct tumor cells through the vasculature (11).

The detection of CTCs in patients, months or years after primary tumor resection, indicates that tumor cells can recirculate from secondary metastatic sites into the bloodstream (5, 12). Whether and how these CTCs contribute to metastatic spread and progression remains unclear. Previous experimental results in a mouse model suggest that tumor cells can recirculate back to the primary site, a process called “tumor self-seeding” (13). To the best of our knowledge, there is no direct proof that this also happens in patients with cancer; however, it is interesting to note that the detection of disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the bone marrow of patients with breast cancer is correlated not only to metastatic relapse but also to locoregional relapse with potentially more aggressive metastatic variants (14). Future comparative genomic analyses of CTCs and DTCs together with primary and metastatic lesions from the same patients might provide more insights.

Over the past 10 years and in most of the current assays, CTCs have been detected through the use of epithelial markers such as EPCAM and cytokeratins that are not expressed on the surrounding mesenchymal blood cells (15). However, epithelial tumor cells can undergo an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) that results in a reduced expression of epithelial markers and an increased plasticity and capacity for migration and invasion, as well as a resistance to anoikis, which are hallmarks required for CTC survival and dissemination (15). It has been previously suggested that this transition might affect tumor cells with stem cell–like properties in particular (16). Thus, it can be envisaged that the founder cells of overt metastases (i.e., “metastatic stem cells”) among CTCs have a reduced expression of epithelial markers. However, the present view is that tumor cells with a partial EMT, also called the “intermediate phenotype,” might have the highest plasticity to adapt to the conditions present in secondary sites (17). This view is supported by the recent work of Cayrefourcq and colleagues, who showed that, after establishing the first colon CTC line from a patient with colon cancer, colon CTCs strongly expressed EPCAM as well as cytokeratins simultaneously with the expression of SNAIL, ALDH1, and CD133 (18). Moreover, Baccelli and colleagues showed that CTCs from patients with breast cancer xenografted into immunodeficient mice expressed detectable amounts of EPCAM and cytokeratins next to CD44, CD47, and the MET oncoprotein (19).

ctDNA

Tumor DNA can be released from primary tumors, CTCs, micrometastasis, or overt metastases into the blood of patients with cancer. The majority of such ctDNA is derived from apoptotic and necrotic tumor cells that release their fragmented DNA into the circulation. Recent studies have indicated that viable tumor cells can release microvesicles (exosomes) that might contain double-stranded DNA (20, 21), but this subject is still debated. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is also released by dying nonmalignant host cells, and this normal cfDNA dilutes the ctDNA in patients with cancer, in particular in situations when tissue-damaging therapies such as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy are administered. The DNA fragment length might provide some information on the origin of cfDNA (22, 23), but we still need to know more about the biology behind the release of ctDNA into the circulation. Moreover, the clearance of cfDNA is also not fully understood. cfDNA has a short half-life of 16 minutes (23) and is cleared through the liver and kidneys (24). Renal dysfunction affects cfDNA clearance (25), which might be a confounding factor modulating the concentration of ctDNA in some patients with cancer.

Several reports indicate that ctDNA can even be taken up by host cells, and this uptake affects the biology of these cells (26). Whether “genometastasis” also occurs in patients with cancer remains the subject of future investigations. Interestingly, Trejo-Becerril and colleagues reported observations on the ability of cfDNA to induce in vitro cell transformation and tumorigenesis by treating NIH3T3 recipient murine cells with the serum of patients with colon cancer and supernatant of SW480 human cancer cells (27). Cell transformation and tumorigenesis of recipient cells did not occur if serum and supernatants were depleted of DNA, which supports the hypothesis that cancer cells emit into the circulation biologically active DNA to foster tumor progression. Thus, ctDNA may be explored as a new target for antitumor therapy aimed to deplete this “oncogenic DNA,” an idea already published decades ago (28).

CTCs

Recent progress has been made in the development of various devices to enrich and detect CTCs, including the discovery and validation of new CTC markers (15). It is important to note that the CTC field focused on the biology of tumor dissemination and in particular on EMT affecting tumor cells with potential stem cell–like properties (16). As a consequence, many groups optimized new devices to select and detect CTCs that underwent EMT (15).

As reviewed recently (15), CTC assays usually start with an enrichment step that increases the concentration of CTCs by several log units and enables an easier detection of single tumor cells. Subsequently, CTC can be detected in different ways. In principle, CTCs can be positively or negatively enriched on the basis of biologic properties (i.e., expression of protein markers) or on the basis of physical properties (i.e., size, density, deformability, or electric charges). Positive or negative CTC enrichment can also be achieved on the basis of a combination of physical and biologic properties in the same device. CTCs can then be detected using immunologic, molecular, or functional assays (15). In the past, many research teams focused on functional tests using CTC cultures/cell lines and xenografts (29, 30). These in vitro and in vivo models can be used to test drug susceptibility. However, in order to contribute to personalized medicine, the efficacy of establishing CTC cultures and xenografts needs to be enhanced. So far, hundreds of CTCs are needed to establish a cell line or xenograft, which limits this approach to few patients with advanced disease.

The focus on new technical developments based on discoveries on CTC biology has slowed down the introduction of CTCs into clinical diagnostics. However, new important insights into the biology of CTCs combined with various innovative technologies have been reported (31), and technical platforms for combined enrichment, detection, and characterization of CTCs are on the horizon.

ctDNA

Highly sensitive and specific methods have been developed to detect ctDNA, including BEAMing Safe-SeqS, TamSeq, and digital PCR to detect single-nucleotide mutations in ctDNA or whole-genome sequencing to establish copy-number changes. In principle, technologies can be divided into targeted approaches that aim to detect mutations in a set of predefined genes (e.g., KRAS in the context of EGFR blockade by antibodies) or untargeted approaches (e.g., array-CGH, whole-genome sequencing, or exome sequencing) that aim to screen the genome and discover new genomic aberrations, e.g., those that confer resistance to a specific targeted therapy (32). The strengths and limitations of these technologies have been recently discussed (33). In general, targeted approaches have a higher analytic sensitivity than untargeted approaches, despite strong efforts to improve detection limits (33). Recently, we have seen an emergence of ultrasensitive technologies able to detect the smallest amounts of ctDNA in the “sea” of normal cfDNA, which are needed for early detection of cancer or minimal residual disease (34).

CTCs

Ilie and colleagues reported that CTCs could be detected in patients with COPD without clinically detectable lung cancer (35). The study included 168 (68.6%) patients with COPD and 77 subjects without COPD (31.4%), including 42 control smokers and 35 nonsmoking healthy individuals. Patients with COPD were monitored annually by low-dose spiral CT. CTCs were detected in 3% of patients with COPD (5 of 168 patients). The annual surveillance of the CTC-positive COPD patients by CT-scan screening detected lung nodules 1 to 4 years after CTC detection, leading to prompt surgical resection and histopathologic diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer, whereas no CTCs were detected in the control smoking and nonsmoking healthy individuals. Interestingly, CTCs detected in patients with COPD had a heterogeneous expression of epithelial and mesenchymal markers. These preliminary findings need to be validated in larger cohorts, and sources that may lead to unspecific findings in non-cancer patients, such as the release of epithelial cells into the blood of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (36), need to be identified.

ctDNA

Detection of cancer by monitoring ctDNA has received great attention (37, 38). The greatest technical challenge is the identification of very low amounts of ctDNA in blood samples with variable amounts of cfDNA and the choice of the right panel of cancer-specific genomic aberrations. Recently, the Johns Hopkins team used digital polymerase chain reaction–based technologies to evaluate the ability of ctDNA to detect tumors in 640 patients with various cancer types (39). ctDNA was identified in only 48% to 73% of patients with localized cancers: colorectal cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast adenocarcinoma. Although remarkable, these detection rates are not satisfactory for early cancer detection. ctDNA was often present in patients without detectable CTCs (39). However, CTCs were not enriched but simply determined in blood pellets with an enormous background of leukocytes, an approach with a very low sensitivity rarely used in modern CTC diagnostics.

To date, many teams are in an ongoing race for more sensitive ctDNA technologies. For example, the team of Maximilian Diehn has developed a new approach called “cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing” (CAPP-Seq; ref. 34). CAPP-Seq was implemented for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a design covering multiple classes of somatic alterations that identified mutations in >95% of tumors with 96% specificity for mutant allele fractions down to approximately 0.02%. Although ctDNA was detected in the majority of patients with stage II–IV disease, only 50% of patients with early-stage NSCLC (stage I) were identified. The abundance of ctDNA in the cfDNA fraction in patients with stage I tumors was measured to be approximately 10-fold lower than that in patients with more advanced disease. This difference is not unexpected and might also be observed in other tumor entities. Thus, further improvements to the technology, including the ability to analyze larger blood volumes, are required to reach an acceptable sensitivity for early cancer detection.

Besides sensitivity, the specificity of the results also poses some additional challenges. Cancer-associated mutations occur with increasing age even in individuals who never develop cancer during their lifetime. For example, clonal hematopoiesis with somatic mutations was observed in 10% of persons older than 65 years of age and was a strong risk factor for subsequent hematologic cancer. However, the absolute risk of conversion from clonal hematopoiesis to hematologic cancer was modest (1.0% per year; ref. 40). Thus, the detection of cancer-associated mutations on cfDNA might not indicate that the individual tested already has cancer or will develop cancer in her/his lifetime, but it might induce substantial anxiety and extensive diagnostic procedures with side effects like radiation.

CTCs

There is a plethora of studies showing the prognostic significance of CTCs in patients with various types of solid tumors, in particular in breast cancer (41). Here, we focus on patients with early-stage disease who have no clinical or radiologic signs of overt distant metastases [tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage M₀]. Interestingly, the 2010 TNM classification has already included a new stage called cM₀(i+), where “i+” refers to the detection of isolated tumor cells in blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes. However, this classification is rarely used in clinical practice, partly because the CTC counts in M₀ patients are very low, which has raised doubts about their usefulness as a reliable marker. Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that the determination of CTC counts before or after initial surgery in M₀ patients is a reliable indicator of an unfavorable prognosis.

Rack and colleagues recently published the largest multicenter study thus far (42). CTCs were analyzed in 2,026 patients with early breast cancer before adjuvant chemotherapy and in 1,492 patients after chemotherapy using the CellSearch System. Before chemotherapy, CTCs were detected in 21.5% of patients, with 19.6% of node-negative and 22.4% of node-positive patients showing CTCs (P < 0.001). The presence of CTCs was associated with poor disease-free survival (DFS; P < 0.001), breast cancer–specific survival (P = 0.008), and overall survival (OS; P = 0.0002). CTCs were confirmed as independent prognostic markers in multivariable analysis. The prognosis was worst in patients with at least five CTCs per 30 mL blood (DFS: HR = 4.51). After chemotherapy, 22.1% of patients were CTC positive, and the persistence of CTCs showed a negative prognostic influence. Thus, CTC detection both before and after adjuvant chemotherapy is linked to an increased risk of relapse in primary breast cancer.

In prostate cancer, unselected groups of newly diagnosed patients without overt metastases have a good prognosis, which requires extended follow-up evaluations of 10 years or more. To circumvent this problem, several groups have focused on high-risk patients with high Gleason scores or high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum levels. Loh and colleagues analyzed CTCs using CellSearch and found only a small number of CTCs in high-risk patients (43). Thalgott and colleagues evaluated high-risk patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy/hormonal therapy and radical prostatectomy and observed that patients with persistent CTCs post-RP developed biochemical recurrence (44).

Promising studies demonstrating significant correlations between CTC counts and metastatic relapse have been observed in other tumor entities, such as colorectal cancer (8), bladder cancer (45, 46), liver cancer (47), and esophageal cancer (48). Taken together, larger cohorts need to be analyzed using more sensitive CTC assays to further explore the clinical relevance of CTCs in nonmetastatic cancer patients. In particular, longitudinal blood analyses during the period between primary surgery and relapse seem to be interesting to discover the kinetics of minimal residual disease, which could provide valuable insights into the biology of cancer dormancy (6, 49).

ctDNA

An exciting challenge is the shift from analysis of patients in advanced stages with high loads of ctDNA to early-stage patients who are treated with curative intent. In cancer types for which adjuvant therapy has marginal benefit in a pathologically staged population or in a lower-risk population where adjuvant therapy is not currently offered, there is the prospect that patients with detectable ctDNA (or CTCs) might be targeted for recruitment into trials to ascertain the benefit of intervening with adjuvant therapy then as opposed to waiting for the emergence of overt metastases. This might extend the benefit of adjuvant therapy, as opposed to only monitoring its utility in populations who are already going to receive adjuvant therapy as a current standard. Of course, randomized trials would be needed to demonstrate utility, but this may be one of the most impactful settings for liquid biopsy measurements.

In paired ctDNA and primary breast cancer samples, Shaw and colleagues identified focal high-level DNA amplifications clustered in numerous chromosome arms, some of which harbored genes with oncogenic potential, including USP17L2 (DUB3), BRF1, MTA1, and JAG2 (50). Up to 12 years after diagnosis, these amplifications were still detectable in some of the follow-up plasma samples, indicating the presence of “occult” micrometastatic disease (50). In estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer, mutations of PIK3CA are frequent genomic alterations (51). Applying a digital PCR assay, Oshiro and colleagues detected that serum samples from 23% of PIK3CA-mutant patients were positive for this mutation, and mutant PIK3CA ctDNA mutation status was a significant and independent prognostic factor for patients with breast cancer (52).

In a postsurgery surveillance study by Reinert and colleagues, ctDNA levels were quantified using droplet digital PCR in 151 plasma samples from six relapsing and five non-relapsing patients with colorectal cancer (53). Relapses could be detected months ahead as compared to conventional follow-up. More recently, Tie and colleagues exploited ctDNA analysis to evaluate tumor burden and predict response to standard chemotherapy in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer (54). By sequencing a panel of 15 genes frequently altered in colorectal cancer, the report highlighted how mutation levels in blood can anticipate response to therapy.

CTCs

Studying CTCs offers a wealth of information on therapeutic targets and resistance mechanisms at the protein, RNA, and genome levels.

ctDNA

Therapeutic targets are usually proteins, but ctDNA analyses can reveal important information on genomic aberrations affecting the efficacy of targeted drugs, including mutations of the EGFR gene in lung cancer, mutations of the KRAS gene in colorectal cancer, TP53 and PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer, and AR gene mutations in prostate cancer. We discuss these ctDNA analyses in the next section, as most of them have been used for monitoring therapies in patients with cancer.

CTCs

The clinical validity of CTC quantification (CellSearch method) for monitoring of chemotherapy was assessed in patients with metastatic breast cancer by undertaking a pooled analysis of individual patient data (88). This landmark analysis was based on data provided by 17 international centers, including 1,944 eligible patients from 20 studies. Remarkably, CTC counts improved the prognostication of metastatic breast cancer when added to full clinicopathologic predictive models, whereas serum tumor markers did not (88), despite the fact that these serum markers are frequently used in clinical practice.

Similarly, Scher and colleagues assessed whether CTC counts (assessed by CellSearch) could be an individual-level surrogate for survival in patients with metastatic CRPC in the context of COU-AA-301, a multinational, randomized, double-blind phase III trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in patients with metastatic CRPC previously treated with docetaxel (89). The biomarkers were measured at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks, with 12 weeks being the primary measure of interest. The study showed that a biomarker panel containing CTC number and LDH level was a surrogate for survival at the individual-patient level, whereas changes in PSA serum levels, used in clinical practice to assess therapeutic efficacy, were not relevant.

Thus, both studies demonstrate that changes in CTC counts measured with a standardized assay can contribute to the early assessment of therapy effects.

ctDNA

In colorectal cancer, acquired resistance to EGFR-specific antibodies is associated with the emergence of RAS pathway mutations, and these mutations have been detected on ctDNA before disease progression can be documented by standard imaging (90–92). Interestingly, patients with colorectal cancer who acquired resistance to EGFR antibodies displayed a heterogeneous pattern of mutation in KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR (93, 94). ctDNA could also be used to track clonal evolution and targeted drug responses (95). Of note, the proportion of KRAS-mutated alleles dynamically increased and decreased in the presence and absence of the anti-EGFR drug (95). Along the same lines, Mohan and colleagues performed whole-genome sequencing of ctDNA in patients with colorectal cancer treated with anti-EGFR therapy (96) and found several copy-number changes in all samples, including loss of the chromosomal 5q22 region harboring the APC gene and loss of chromosome arms 17p and 18q as well as amplifications in known genes involved in the resistance to EGFR blockade, such as MET, ERBB2, and KRAS (96). Thus, these studies indicate that clonal evolution during targeted therapies might be detected by analysis of ctDNA.

In breast cancer, using whole-genome sequencing, Bettegowda and colleagues detected ctDNA in more than 75% of patients with advanced cancer and 50% of patients with localized breast cancer (39). Furthermore, Dawson and colleagues identified somatic genomic alterations in serially collected plasma from patients with metastatic breast cancer (97). Tumor-associated cfDNA was detected in most patients with breast cancer in whom somatic genomic alterations were identified. The ctDNA levels showed a greater dynamic range, and greater correlation with changes in tumor burden, than did CA15-3 or CTCs detected by the CellSearch system. However, the dropout rate was considerable, and the analyses were restricted to a small cohort of patients. Recently, Madic and colleagues performed another comparative evaluation of CTCs and ctDNA in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (98). TP53 mutations were found in more than 80% of tumor and ctDNA samples. CTC counts detected with the CellSearch system were correlated with overall survival, whereas ctDNA levels had no prognostic impact. Murtaza and colleagues also tracked genomic evolution on ctDNA of metastatic breast cancer patients in response to therapy (32), and demonstrated that ctDNA mutation levels increased in association with acquired drug resistance, including an activating mutation in PIK3CA following treatment with paclitaxel, a truncating mutation in the ER coactivator mediator complex subunit 1 (MED1) following treatment with tamoxifen and trastuzumab, and, following subsequent treatment with lapatinib, a splicing mutation in GAS6, the ligand for the tyrosine kinase receptor AXL (32). Taken together, these exciting proof-of-principle studies need further validation using larger cohorts and more modern CTC assays.

In prostate cancer, there is a clear focus on aberrations related to resistance to antiandrogen therapies. Heitzer and colleagues started to show the feasibility of genome-wide analysis of ctDNA in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (99). The genome-wide profiling of ctDNA revealed multiple copy-number aberrations, including those previously reported in prostate tumors, such as losses in 8p and gains in 8q. High-level copy-number gains in the AR locus were observed in patients with CRPC. More recently, Azad and colleagues found that AR amplification was significantly more common in patients progressing on enzalutamide than on abiraterone or other agents (100). Besides AR gene amplification, Joseph and colleagues showed that the AR F876L mutant, a missense mutation in the ligand-binding domain of the AR, is detectable in plasma DNA from ARN-509–treated patients with progressive CRPC, suggesting that selective outgrowth of this mutant might be a relevant mechanism of second-generation antiandrogen resistance that can be potentially targeted with next-generation antiandrogens (101). Along the same lines, Romanel and colleagues developed a targeted next-generation sequencing approach amenable to plasma DNA, covering all AR coding bases and genomic regions that are highly informative in prostate cancer (102). Whereas AR copy number was unchanged from before treatment to progression and no mutant AR alleles showed signals for acquired gain, emergence of T878A or L702H AR amino acid changes in 13% of tumors at progression on abiraterone was observed. Patients with AR gain or T878A or L702H before abiraterone are less likely to have a decline in PSA and had a significantly worse overall and progression-free survival. Taken together, these studies indicate that AR gene aberrations detected on ctDNA predict outcome of antiandrogen therapy.

Chemotherapy Switch Based on CTC Enumeration

In the screening part of the SWOG 0500 (NCT00382018) clinical trial, metastatic patients treated with first-line chemotherapy (combined or not with targeted therapy) had their CTC count determined before cycles 1 and 2. Patients with persistently elevated CTCs (≥5 CTCs/7.5 mL) after one cycle (i.e., around days 21–28) were at higher risk of early cancer progression and were randomized between continuation of the first-line chemotherapy (until classic evidence of clinical or radiologic progression) or early switch to another chemotherapy regimen, before any radiologic progression (103). This study confirms the prognostic significance of CTCs in patients with MBC receiving first-line chemotherapy. For patients with persistently increased CTCs after 21 days of first-line chemotherapy, early switching to an alternate cytotoxic therapy was not effective in prolonging overall survival. For this population, there is a need for more effective treatment than standard chemotherapy (104). The randomized phase II study by Georgoulias and colleagues indicated that trastuzumab decreases the incidence of clinical relapses in patients with early breast cancer presenting chemotherapy-resistant CTCs (105).

Stratification of Patients to Chemotherapy or Hormonal Therapy Based on CTC Enumeration

In the STIC CTC METABREAST clinical trial (NCT01710605), about 1,000 patients with HR⁺ M⁺ breast cancer were randomized between clinician choice and CTC count-driven choice. In the CTC arm, patients with high CTC counts (≥5 CTCs/7.5 mL) received chemotherapy, whereas patients with low counts (<5 CTCs/7.5 mL) received endocrine therapy as first-line treatment. The only difference between the CTC and standard arms was the rates of hormone therapy versus chemotherapy-based treatment. This pivotal trial has been designed to show noninferiority of the CTC arm for progression-free survival (primary clinical endpoint) and superiority of the CTC arm for the medico-economics study (co-primary endpoint; ref. 103). The study started in 2012 and is still recruiting patients; more than 660 patients have been included as of December 2015.

Stratification of Patients Based on HER2-Phenotyping of CTCs

The following studies are still ongoing at the time of manuscript submission, and we will therefore briefly discuss the study designs.

In the DETECT III study, 1,426 patients with metastatic breast cancer and with up to three chemotherapy lines for metastatic disease are tested for HER2⁺ CTCs. In all patients, the HER2 status of the primary tumor and metastatic lesions has to be negative. At least one HER2⁺ CTC/7.5 mL of blood has to be detected in these patients. Two hundred twenty-eight patients meeting the inclusion criteria are randomized between two arms receiving standard therapy or standard therapy plus lapatinib. Standard treatment consists of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy that is either approved for combination with lapatinib or has been investigated in clinical trials. Patients with bone metastases are treated with denosumab in both arms. The primary endpoint of the DETECT III study is progression-free survival; secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and the dynamic of CTCs.

Based on the fact that HER2 can be “gained” in CTCs at metastatic stage in HER2⁻ primary breast cancers, the CirCe trial is a second interventional phase II study. It uses the HER2/CEP17 ratio measurement by FISH for HER2 amplification assessment. In this single-arm study, patients with HER2-amplified CTCs receive an anti-HER2 drug without combined chemotherapy; response rate will be the study's main endpoint.

Finally, the Treat CTC trial is a randomized phase II trial for patients with HER2-nonamplified primary breast cancer with ≥1CTC/15 mL of blood after completion of (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. Before randomization, a central review of both the HER2 status of the primary tumor and the CellSearch CTC images is performed. Eligible patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the trastuzumab or the observation arm. Patients randomized to the trastuzumab arm receive a total of six injections every 3 weeks. Patients randomized to observation are observed for 18 weeks. The primary endpoint will compare CTC detection rate at week 18 between the two arms, whereas the secondary endpoint will compare recurrence-free interval.

Stratification of Patients Based on EGFR Mutation Analysis of ctDNA

Recently, the first ctDNA test for EGFR mutations in NSCLC has been approved, which is an important step toward clinical implementation of liquid biopsy. Approval was based on a phase IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) aimed to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC. The study included EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumor and plasma samples and concluded that (i) first-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC and (ii) ctDNA could be considered for mutation analysis if tumor tissue is unavailable (106).